Pages

Thursday, June 05, 2014

A Right Roy-al Mess (Vandalism, Defamation, CPF and the demise of the PAP)

It’s been a while since I last blogged. But, quite a few things have been going on in
our little red dot and some of them have been pretty red hot.

Two things seem to have converged together to give the
impression that there is a state of rage right now in this country and that the
PAP needs to take heed of this. Quite
literally, the writing is on the wall.

When the Vandalism Act was passed in the 1960s, it included
caning as a punishment. The reason was
political. Even if we were to put aside
the question of whether caning should be a form of punishment at all, it is
plainly obvious that caning for a property offence is extremely disproportionate. It appears that in the 1960s slogan-writing
by political opponents was a phenomenon the PAP government had to contend
with. LKY and his fellow
Parliamentarians seem to be aware that they were not dealing with mere juvenile
delinquents. These were persons driven
by ideological passion. In his cruel,
brutish fashion, the old man seems to have felt that a few strokes of the cane
would set right whatever political thinking there was in the minds of the
slogan writers.

I feel it is appropriate to quote from the man himself on
the reason for corporal punishment:

“a fine will not deter the type of criminal we are facing
here. He is quite prepared to go to
gaol, having defaced public buildings with red paint. Flaunting the values of his ideology, he is
quite prepared to make a martyr of himself and go to gaol. He will not pay the fine and make a
demonstration of his martyrdom. But if
he knows he is going to get three of the best, I think he will lose a great
deal of enthusiasm, because there is little glory attached to the rather
humiliating experience of having to be caned.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, 1966

So we have now come full cycle.

“Fuck the PAP”.

That is
not the first time that I have seen that phrase. There must be numerous public toilets in
Singapore serving the function of being the canvas for the citizenry’s
frustrations. But, the display of that
undercurrent of frustration on a wall on top of a HDB block is dramatic and
audacious. Before the authorities could
whitewash those words away (and they were swift in doing so), pictures of the
graffiti got posted, re-posted and shared on numerous Facebook walls. To be honest, many of us cheered the figurative
punch in the PAP face even if we may not condone vandalism. The local media (dutifully attempting to
protect the image of their masters) carried a photograph with the words “fuck” and
“PAP” blurred which prompted many mocking statements online about how the
Straits Times seems to think that the latter is a vulgar word that deserves to
be censored.

The authorities moved in swiftly. The crime scene was whitewashed swiftly after
police had inspected it. 5 kids were
duly rounded up and have been charged and are out on bail. Guilty or not guilty? That is now for the court to determine. But, it is undeniable that the anti-PAP
sentiment seems to be boiling over.

We don’t usually expect elderly persons to scribble
graffiti. This seems to be an activity
reserved for teens and young adults. So,
when a 71 year old man was arrested for writing graffiti on bus stops, his age
was itself a statement that spoke louder than the words that he scribbled: “We support CPF blogger. Return our CPF
money…” In all, 11 bus stops were
identified by the police to have been vandalized by the same individual.

What would drive a 71 year old man to take the rather risky
step of defacing public property when the state’s intolerance of this kind of
crime is well known? Obviously, a
deep-seated hatred for the government’s policies relating to CPF is sweeping
the land. The older generation
(including my parents) has been pretty loyal in its electoral support of the
PAP. But, as many of them are struggling
to make ends meet and as medical bills rise and as their children struggle to
support them in their old age, they can’t help but notice the woeful inadequacy
of CPF as a retirement fund.

The frustrations are real.
I see many former PAP loyalists of that generation becoming openly
critical of the PAP. Persons that I have
known to be lifelong PAP supporters have been lamenting that the current
leaders have become completely out of touch.
The lack of transparency surrounding the GIC, Temasek and CPF has led
many citizens to speculate about investment losses and even potential
cronyism. Just as there is no evidence
to suggest that there is no wrongdoing, the non-transparent approach adopted by
the state results in a lack of evidence as to whether all is well in relation to
the CPF monies of the people.

On and off, there have been articles online speculating
about Temasek Holdings and its financial health. None of them managed to fire the popular
imagination. The usual opposition
supporters would have been the likely readers of many of these articles.

Roy and the Emperor’s Opaque clothes

Frustrations are such that very few people have the ability
to intellectually dissect and try to understand and come to terms with the
exact source. If I have been feeling
frustrated about one issue, it can very easily be morphed over into being a
frustration about another issue. For
some time now, Singaporeans have been troubled by transportation woes, rising
property prices, rising cost of living, depression of wages, overcrowding and
of course many of these frustrations have been channeled into being a general
resentment of the government’s population policy.

But there is a more fundamental sore point that haunts many
Singaporeans. We don’t often articulate
it as the single biggest issue. When you
come to think of it, the issue surrounding CPF savings and the ability of
Singaporeans to retire has been something that has troubled us long before
immigration and overcrowding became issues.

Many Singaporeans have a legitimate concern about the
viability of the CPF system as a retirement plan. Personally, I don’t think I can retire
comfortably with my CPF savings. I have
to make other financial plans for retirement.
If you are still in your 20s or 30s, you would be well advised to start
early in saving and investing for your retirement. Don’t put it off till you are in your 40s or
50s. I believe that for the average
Singaporean, the CPF savings and the amounts in Medisave will be insufficient
for their retirement and medical needs.

For the elderly today it is already too late to do
anything. My parents’ retirement
investment was their kids. That’s the
same with my wife’s parents. I believe
that for many Singaporeans in their 70s and 80s the common problem is that they
have become entirely dependant on their children for medical as well as daily
living expenses. Medical expenses can be
a real killer. From my own experience,
my wife’s Medisave has been completely depleted after using substantial sums
for her parents’ medical expenses. My
parents are presently dependant on me and my sisters for daily expenses as well
medical expenses. My mother’s medisave
is depleted and my father’s would be easily depleted if either one of them has
a major hospitalization expense. It was
not common during my parents’ generation for them to have medical
insurance.

I am aware that many other elderly Singaporeans don’t even
have the luxury of depending on their kids.
These are the Singaporeans that must be feeling that there is a certain
breach of faith in the social contract.
We have a generation of elderly Singaporeans that are not able to
support themselves financially: A
generation of Singaporeans that toiled really hard; a generation that did not
have much by way of education but one that compensated for it through sheer
hard work; a generation that was literally being abandoned by the government
and the general society until the recently announced Pioneer package (which the
cynical amongst us can’t help but feel is nothing more than a desperate attempt
to prevent further erosion of votes).

We then have Singaporeans in their 50s and 60s that are
experiencing immediate issues with the postponement of the retirement age and
the increase of the minimum sum for the CPF.
This, I believe, is a very angry group.
If you were to speak to individuals from low income background (or even middle
income) that are part of this age-group, you’d find that there is a general
resentment at the CPF policies. The fact
is that many people do not have any idea as to how the CPF rules work and there
is of course the general dissatisfaction over the low interest payment of 2.5%
that is paid into the CPF.

Against the backdrop of this general dissatisfaction, we
have Roy Ngerng blogging about the CPF issue.
I have read Roy’s blog on and off and he has done some good work on many
socio political issues relevant to Singapore.
Recently, when I came across the offending article that is the subject
matter of the dispute between the PM and Roy, I was somewhat disappointed at
the rather sensationalistic headline and layout of the article. When I saw the analogy drawn between City
Harvest Church and the movement of CPF monies through Temasek and GIC, I
couldn’t help but feel that Roy was acting recklessly. When the PM’s letter of demand was eventually
made public, I wasn’t surprised.

There have been other instances in other local defamation cases
when the words were on the borderline of being defamatory. But, in the case of Roy’s article, I have to
say that the legal requirements for defamation can be easily made out.

I feel that the PM’s decision to send a letter of demand
with not just a request for apology but also for damages was a mistake. By doing so, he gave Roy no alternative. Apologise and pay damages? Fight, lose the case and pay damages? That’s not much of a choice. When Roy did offer an apology and the sum of
$5000, it was turned down.

I expect that from a PR perspective this case is going to be
pretty much a downhill affair for the PM.
Already, the general public perception has been that this is a case of
the big guy bullying the little guy. The
swift online fund-raising campaign on behalf of Roy demonstrates that there are
a significant number of people that are willing to put their money where their
mouth is. Hitting $70,000 in collections
in 4 days is undeniably a record. The
contributing public is clearly not homogenous.
Some see this as a battle to find out the truth about the CPF. There are others who hate the PAP and just
want to help out Roy in his fight. There
are contributors adopting a nuanced position on this whole saga: ‘I don’t agree
with Roy’s assertions but I defend his right to speak up fearlessly’. (I personally feel that way as well. It is for precisely this reason that I did not support the petition to close down STOMP.)

What the PM needs to recognize is that this is not just
another one of those old defamation cases pitting PAP Ministers against
opposition politicians. For one, Roy is
just an average citizen earning a meager income as a social worker. And secondly, the issue raised up by him is
closely tied up with that very issue that is most Singaporeans’ biggest sore
point. Forget about immigration, the population
white paper and the infrastructural squeeze.
CPF strikes a raw nerve.

It is quite likely that as the case against Roy proceeds,
the issue of retirement funds will be kept high up in the priority list as far
as voters are concerned. I am sure that
the PM’s lawyers will try their level best to ensure that they get a summary
judgment in the case so that the matter will not go for trial. Once it doesn’t go through the trial process,
then there will be no embarrassing questions that can be asked about the CPF or
Temasek or GIC.

In all likelihood, they will succeed in obtaining a summary
judgment and the matter will be concluded through a chamber hearing and members
of the public will miss out on any juicy cross-examination in open court. Roy’s rather public display of his admission
means that he doesn’t have any defence when the matter proceeds to court. His letter of apology states the following:

“2. I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that
Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is
guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the
Central Provident Fund.

3. I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and
completely without foundation.”

One of the defences to defamation is ‘justification’. This is an assertion by the defendant that he
is stating the truth. Some netizens that
have expressed support for Roy seem to think that Roy should ‘expose the truth’
in court and prove that what he said is true.
That statement in paragraph 3 of Roy’s apology letter renders any such
attempt an impossibility. If he tries to
run the justification defence, the PM’s lawyers will rely on Roy’s admission
that what he wrote was false and without foundation.

If Roy had privately communicated through his lawyer and
attempted to settle the matter through ‘without prejudice’ letters, the
communication would have been ‘privileged’ and would not be referred to in
Court. But, by making a public show of
the apology letter, Roy has effectively waived the privilege. PM’s lawyers will apply for summary judgment
and there’s a high probability that they will get it.

The most likely consequence of this is that the matter will
eventually be fixed for assessment of damages and it is at that hearing that M.
Ravi (Roy’s lawyer) will get to cross-examine the PM. However, any questions asked about the
subject matter of the defamation will most likely be overruled by the judge as
being irrelevant. The judge would only
entertain questions pertaining to the issue of the damage to reputation. This may not go down very well with the
general public.

The irony of all this is that even through the law taking
its ordinary course and the judiciary acting impartially and fairly in
accordance with the law, the public is going to end up getting the impression
that the proceedings are biased and unfair.
Perception, not truth, is everything in politics. PAP politicians, more than any others should
be aware of this.

Pursuing this case all the way is going to be a serious PR
disaster for the PM.

Thanks to the increased publicity generated by Roy Ngerng’s
case, I have noticed that social media is abuzz with plenty of articles
focusing on CPF, Temasek, GIC and transparency. (SG Daily carries links to most
of these articles http://singaporedaily.net/2014/06/05/daily-sg-5-jun-2014/).
If these issues are kept on the agenda consistently,
it will turn more and more voters away from the PAP. I am not sure if the PM’s PR people realize
that they have stirred the hornet’s nest.

Saturday, 7th June 2014, Hong Lim Park will
witness another protest. Turnout is
likely to be strong. Many friends and
acquaintances have expressed a desire to go for this protest. It would be interesting to see how many
people feel concerned enough about the CPF issue to turn up for the
protest. The protest is not about Roy
Ngerng. But, the defamation suit has
definitely coloured the event.

There are some serious issues that need to be addressed in
Singapore about what should be the ideal retirement plan that is feasible not
only for the rich but also for the weakest amongst us. The “Return Our CPF” protest would hopefully
help to get the ball rolling in terms of greater transparency in the system and
in ensuring that we as a nation can work out a more viable retirement plan for
our citizens. But of course, one can’t
help but feel cynical.

Whatever your position might be on the Roy
Ngerng saga, I feel that it is important to have a good showing on Saturday to
send a clear message to the government that we are not happy with the way that
the CPF system is being administered.

12 comments:

Anonymous
said...

When reading Roy's offending article did you believe that the PM pocketed all those billions of CPF money? Do you think anyone would? It is surely an absurd charge, if indeed Roy, intended it. So what do you think the damages would be if no sane person would believe it? The decision to sue is, in my opinion, a purely political one.

Granting a summary judgement in chamber in favour ofthe PM will be another proof that the judiciary is deferent or worse, beholden to the Executive. The ruling party is their master. The judiciary self-contempted itself.

Magnificent goods from you, man. I've understand your stuff previous to and you are just too magnificent. I really like what you've acquired here, really like what you're stating and the way in which you say it.You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it smart. I can't wait to read far more from you.This is actually a wonderful website.

About Me

I blog primarily about the law & politics in Singapore, occassionally veering off into socio-economic issues. Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution protects the Freedom of Speech, Expression,Peaceful Assembly and Association. But, there are excessive restrictions on these Freedoms. I hope that I can, in my small way, contribute to the gradual realisation of these Freedoms in our land